Relativity+

Farsight · #1 (**permalink**) 04-October-2007, 12:55 PM

Here's the "scientific paper" version of RELATIVITY+ on a publicly-available website:

http://www.relativityplus.info/

Click on the link at the bottom of the single page to download the PDF file. Personally I think it's better to then print it and read it offline, but some prefer to read material like this directly on the screen. Each to his own. Note that this is a "qualitative model", and I like to call it a qualitative "toy" model. It doesn't qualify as a theory, and it certainly isn't a "Theory of Everything". Doubtless there will be some errors in there, perhaps even a couple of howlers. But I hope there's at least some good value that advances the cause we're all rooting for.

As ever, if anybody can offer any feedback, I'll be grateful. Otherwise, enjoy.

PS: I haven't posted here much. Sorry. I've posted this thread on a number of other forums, and on balance I felt I didn't want to leave you out, particularly since I've noticed sweetser treading his lonely road. Please be aware that I am banned from PhysicsForums, originally as a crackpot and later for duplicate accounts, and cannot post there.

nutant gene 71 · #2 (**permalink**) 04-October-2007, 08:14 PM

Thanks Farsight, for that well reasoned paper on interaction between frequency and space, not a trivial idea in my opinion.

I haven't digested all of it yet, but from what I read, the moving parts fit. The paper said something of interest, regarding 'black holes' and relativistic mass, and time, on pg. 32 (#9, The Universe) which caught my eye:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Duffield, the paper

However our new understanding of mass shows us a picture of a moving electron as a helical spring,
where invariant mass is the circular component, and the relativistic mass is one turn round the helix. If
the helical spring was stretched out straight, the relativistic mass looks infinite. Our new understanding
of time means dividing the electron’s circles into our own, so when the helix is stretched out straight,
the time dilation looks infinite too. We begin to see why the infinities aren’t real. And then our new
understanding of gravity tells us that wherever gravity increases, c decreases, even though we can never
measure it locally. Where gravity is so strong that the time dilation is infinite, c goes to zero. (bold mine)

Then on pg. 35 you show divergence between 'inverse square gravity' and 'non-inverse-square' gravity, where the Matter/energy stress approximates MOND/Pioneers. Does that imply that there is a graduated relationship between the 'c to gravity' inverse relationship, which is what Pioneer Anomaly and MOND may possibly (though we do not really know how) are trying to tell us?

We know the 'gravity increases, c decreases' works as a function of gravity and gravitational redshift, though c in fact remains constant. But could this relationship also show up in energy density, so when c is diluted with distance, by inverse square, the 'gravity increases' in some like manner? So by the time we get to the edges of galaxies, MOND with higher gravity takes hold, resulting in flat rotation curves? Indeed, we may not be able to measure it locally, but if the Pioneers are really acting 'as if' their inertial mass is (gravitationally) increasing to cause them to accelerate towards the sun (with distance from the sun), then this may be as local as we can get in seeing this phenomenon.

Will read rest of paper.. Curious ideas, but well coherent. Thanks.

Farsight · #3 (**permalink**) 05-October-2007, 01:27 PM

Thanks nute.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nutant gene 71

... Then on pg. 35 you show divergence between 'inverse square gravity' and 'non-inverse-square' gravity, where the Matter/energy stress approximates MOND/Pioneers. Does that imply that there is a graduated relationship between the 'c to gravity' inverse relationship, which is what Pioneer Anomaly and MOND may possibly (though we do not really know how) are trying to tell us?

Not quite. Imagine the cannonball on the rubber sheet analogy. The curve is akin to the way gravity reduces according to the inverse square rule. But if the rubber sheet was not initially of uniform strength or at the same tension throughout, your curve will be a little different. For example, imagine you stitched a rubber mat under where the cannonball was going to go. It would spread the load a little, and the curve will be a little flatter and wider. I'm basically saying that the gradient in c is what gravity is, and the gradient is affected by the fact that some parts of space have previously expanded more than others.

Quote:

We know the 'gravity increases, c decreases' works as a function of gravity and gravitational redshift, though c in fact remains constant. But could this relationship also show up in energy density, so when c is diluted with distance, by inverse square, the 'gravity increases' in some like manner? So by the time we get to the edges of galaxies, MOND with higher gravity takes hold, resulting in flat rotation curves? Indeed, we may not be able to measure it locally, but if the Pioneers are really acting 'as if' their inertial mass is (gravitationally) increasing to cause them to accelerate towards the sun (with distance from the sun), then this may be as local as we can get in seeing this phenomenon.

The c is always locally measured to be constant, but see page 5 re Einstein and page 19 re time dilation. Also look at figure 33 on page 35. See the right hand edge of the curve? Imagine it tapering off more than I've drawn it. That's where gravity is going linear. It's still diminishing with distance, but not according to the inverse square rule. Yes, there is some energy density to consider. The energy density of the space out there is less than that of the space here. Note that the Pioneers are not necessarily being accelerated towards the sun. What they actually measured was an anomalous doppler frequency drift which is increasing in a linear fashion. This might be due to a little more time dilation. But don't quote me on that, I'm no expert on Pioneer. Or much else, some would say!

PS: I made a mistake in the proton/neuton expression on page 29, and said proton instead of neutron. Groan. Now fixed.

czeslaw · #4 (**permalink**) 05-October-2007, 01:43 PM

We discussed a similar idea at 18.May.2007
Gravity is virtual electric plasma
The website of Farsight is writen in a proper English and explains gravity clearly.
It seems that all particles are combinations of the electron-positon as a distortion of the space. This bacis distortion is of Planck lenngth and it explains relation of the Gravitational and EM force.

Every energy has its relativistic mass and it has its weight. It may explain Pioneer's anomaly deceleration and Dark Matter effect.

nutant gene 71 · #5 (**permalink**) 05-October-2007, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farsight

Thanks nute.

Not quite. Imagine the cannonball on the rubber sheet analogy. The curve is akin to the way gravity reduces according to the inverse square rule. But if the rubber sheet was not initially of uniform strength or at the same tension throughout, your curve will be a little different. For example, imagine you stitched a rubber mat under where the cannonball was going to go. It would spread the load a little, and the curve will be a little flatter and wider. I'm basically saying that the gradient in c is what gravity is, and the gradient is affected by the fact that some parts of space have previously expanded more than others.

The c is always locally measured to be constant, but see page 5 re Einstein and page 19 re time dilation. Also look at figure 33 on page 35. See the right hand edge of the curve? Imagine it tapering off more than I've drawn it. That's where gravity is going linear. It's still diminishing with distance, but not according to the inverse square rule. Yes, there is some energy density to consider. The energy density of the space out there is less than that of the space here. Note that the Pioneers are not necessarily being accelerated towards the sun. What they actually measured was an anomalous doppler frequency drift which is increasing in a linear fashion. This might be due to a little more time dilation. But don't quote me on that, I'm no expert on Pioneer. Or much else, some would say!

PS: I made a mistake in the proton/neuton expression on page 29, and said proton instead of neutron. Groan. Now fixed.

The "thanks" are mine, really. I'm enjoying reading your paper.

I do understand the variable rulers used to measure c, so it always comes up c. And I understand the cannonball analogy, though imperfect it may be, for gravity. Where I was intrigued was this, since there seems to be a ‘light to gravity’ interaction taking place, as per paper, pp. 11-12 (#4, Mass), it says:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relativity+

Energy exhibits what is called “active” gravitational mass. Since a photon exhibits energy, it also exhibits active gravitational mass. A 511KeV photon causes the same degree of gravitational attraction as an electron. What’s important here is that energy causes gravity, not mass. Whilst a mass does cause gravity, this is because it is merely a measure of the amount of energy that is no longer moving with respect to the observer.
To clarify on terminology, there is some common confusion regarding the word “mass”. Whilst the accepted definition is rest mass, this is also called “invariant mass” or “intrinsic mass” or “proper mass”. The term “relativistic mass” is simply a measure of energy, which is why it applies to a massless photon. When we apply it to a cannonball travelling at 1000m/s, it is a measure that combines the rest mass energy and the kinetic energy of motion into total energy. We also talk of “inertial mass”, which is a measure of how much force we need to apply to accelerate an object. If you recall decelerating the cannonball using sheets of cardboard, it’s clear that this is the same thing as relativistic mass. We also talk of “passive gravitational mass”, which is a a measure of how much an object is attracted by gravity. I will cover gravity in a later section.

I can understand how ‘mass’ is a function of ‘energy’, whereby ‘relativistic-mass’ is an ‘energy-measured’ mass, as a product of kinetic energy. However, ‘rest mass’ as an invariant-mass may also be a ‘relativistic-mass’ when gravity is involved, if that gravity is a function of electron energy packed into that material mass. What I mean (though this is still fuzzy in my mind too) is that if “511KeV causes the same degree of gravitational attraction as an electron”, so that “energy causes gravity, not mass”, then conversely ‘inertial mass’ is (per Equivalence Principle) caused by gravity, as equivalent to mass. Can you see the subtle point here? If gravity is proportional to energy, then more energy should lower the inertial mass, not raise it. For example, what happens to a gas when it is heated? It becomes molecularly more active, which means the radiant energy is being converted into kinetic energy at the atomic level, which is why a contained gas heated will increase pressure. So more energy does not increase gravity, and by equivalence does not increase mass, but may actually be a way to measure the opposite effect, the decrease in gravity, if inertial mass is decreased when heated. It was for this reason your above “gravity increases, c decreases” caught my eye. Because it may very well be that when energy c decreases, meaning radiant energy decreases, then inertial mass increases, meaning molecular motion slows (which per Equivalence means if inertial mass increases, then gravity increases). Mind, these may be such small variations that are vitually impossible to measure here on Earth, and even at the outer solar system where Pioneers are doing their thing, it was only much later noticeable, when past Saturn. However, if the Pioneers are NOT slowing with acceleration towards the Sun, but merely shifting their electron frequency, slowing it, to give us the illusion of their slowing, then disregard all of my above. But if they really ARE slowing, then the cause and effect may be exactly what you described above, that less energy density in the outer solar system is increasing inertial mass out there. And that, if so, would slow them down with acceleration towards the Sun. Weird, but it could explain something now puzzling.

So when on pg. 18 (#6, Gravity) you talk about electrical permittivity and magnetic permeability, it all “clicked” together. In yours:

Quote:

If we recall that charge is twist, this implies that space must be “less rigid” if permittivity is increased,
hence 1/?0 can be likened to G. High permeability means a material exhibits more magnetic flux upon a change in charge.
If we recall that magnetism is turn, this implies that space must be “more dense” if permeability is increased, and
better able to effect a turning motion.
…
Returning to our analogy, by now our photon-marble is passing our electron-cannonball. We notice it
veers towards it a little. This can be understood by appreciating that where the rubberworld tension is
greater, the real-world impedance is higher, hence the velocity of light is lower. What we observe
appears to be a form of refraction as demonstrated by gravitational lensing. The crucial point is this: our
real world is like a block of ghostly transparent elastic containing ripples of stress, some of which are
tied into knots. And we are a part of it, we are ripples and knots too. We are painted into the bulk of the
rubber that is space. We stretch with it. We are made out of this insubstantial substance, along with our
rulers and clocks. We are so totally immersed within it and a part of it that we cannot directly measure
any change in tension, and nor can we directly measure any change in the velocity of light, because we
can only measure the velocity of light in terms of the velocity of light. The situation is akin to
measuring the length of our shadow using the shadow of our ruler: we will always measure the same
length, be it dawn, noon, or dusk.

Instead we feel a “force” called “gravity”. It remains curiously mysterious even though we can readily
infer the variation in c. It is programmed into our GPS[11]. We see it in the Pound/Rebka[12] experiment,
where a photon appears to be blue-shifted at the bottom of the tower. And we see it in the Shapiro
Effect[13] where light takes a longer duration to skim the sun.
…

This is something being looked at as well, if I understand it, at the under construction Large Hadron Collider, as per this article: The Vacuum Strikes Back. So the mystery of ‘mass’ may actually be a function of the space vacuum, where the energy ‘shadow’ of the electron energy (what is ‘left behind’ in the atom) is what taps into the space vacuum, to become its inertial mass. However, if so, then what the Pioneers are doing far from the Sun’s radiant energy, when past the gas giants, is tapping into more of this space vacuum ‘inertial mass’. But this is true only if they actually really are slowing down, and not merely fooling us with (slowed?) signals coming back to give illusion of their slowing down. Indirectly, I think you may be showing a hypothesis why the former is true, that they are actually slowing.

I wonder if the Pluto Mission will help clear up this conundrum, as to whether or not Pioneers are really slowing, or only their signal measured?

What do you think? I do not want to mis-represent what you are saying, so please correct me if I misunderstand. Thanks.

mugaliens · #6 (**permalink**) 06-October-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by czeslaw

It seems that all particles are combinations of the electron-positon as a distortion of the space. This bacis distortion is of Planck lenngth and it explains relation of the Gravitational and EM force.

It was a good paper.

But while he did mention Planck's constant, I really can't fathom how he managed his discussions of both time and distance without any mention of Planck time and Planck distance, both of which are fundamental to the fabric of the space-time continuum.

By the way, it's not really a "continuum," as that implies a smooth function. It's actually more like a "discretum," although I suppose "quantum" is more accurate.

I guess most of you don't feel like you jerk around every 5.4 x 10^-44 seconds, do you?

I don't either, but it's a fact nevertheless, though on a practical basis I'm fairly smooth...

czeslaw · #7 (**permalink**) 06-October-2007, 02:11 PM

Is it an accident that relation of the Gravitational and Electromagnetic interaction are equal to the square relation of the Planck length and de Broglie wave length and the fine structure constant is an only difference ?

Why is it so difficuld to observe a Higgs boson ? Because it would be at Planck length, I think.
Something sits in the space (Vacuum) and it creates a real Universe.

nutant gene 71 · #8 (**permalink**) 06-October-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by czeslaw

Is it an accident that relation of the Gravitational and Electromagnetic interaction are equal to the square relation of the Planck length and de Broglie wave length and the fine structure constant is an only difference ?

I doubt it's an accident these interrelate so well. Planck and Prince de Broglie were heading the right way, I think, but thread of thought ran into the Standard Model where gravity won't play along. I think Farsight is trying to pick it up here, good work, but he too runs up against what I pointed up above: is it signal slow-down or inertial-mass variable that accounts for Pioneer Anomaly? Perhaps Pluto Mission will help clear this up, or ESA's future mission, if it flies, to measure for inertial-mass in the outer solar system to resolve this question.

Do you have references that show the interrelationships between Gravitational and Electromagnetic interaction as square relation of Planck length and de Broglie wave length? Thanks.

Farsight · #9 (**permalink**) 06-October-2007, 03:33 PM

Thanks again nute. On some other forums people just won't read this paper and instead give me all sorts of "crackpot" abuse. Not good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nutant gene 71

I can understand how ‘mass’ is a function of ‘energy’, whereby ‘relativistic-mass’ is an ‘energy-measured’ mass, as a product of kinetic energy. However, ‘rest mass’ as an invariant-mass may also be a ‘relativistic-mass’ when gravity is involved, if that gravity is a function of electron energy packed into that material mass. What I mean (though this is still fuzzy in my mind too) is that if “511KeV causes the same degree of gravitational attraction as an electron”, so that “energy causes gravity, not mass”, then conversely ‘inertial mass’ is (per Equivalence Principle) caused by gravity, as equivalent to mass. Can you see the subtle point here? If gravity is proportional to energy, then more energy should lower the inertial mass, not raise it.

I'm afraid I don't, nute. Sorry if I've missed something there. The way I see it, and sorry if this is repeating what I've already said, a photon is an "action" that has energy/momentum. The energy is a distance-based measure and the momentum is a time-based measure, but they're both measures of the same thing. If you could keep the photon in one location you'd interpret the momentum as inertia. The gravity is just the extended "tension gradient" that balances the matter/energy stress. Or if you prefer it's the "reaction" that balances the action, only it's spread out rather than localised. More energy means more gravity.

Quote:

For example, what happens to a gas when it is heated? It becomes molecularly more active, which means the radiant energy is being converted into kinetic energy at the atomic level, which is why a contained gas heated will increase pressure. So more energy does not increase gravity, and by equivalence does not increase mass, but may actually be a way to measure the opposite effect, the decrease in gravity, if inertial mass is decreased when heated.

People have talked about "a photon in a box", where the massless photon bounces back and forth inside the box, because it's mirrored. Whilst the photon has no mass, the mass of the box is increased by the presence of the photon. If you simulate heating the box by replacing the photon with a higher frequency photon, the mass of the box increases further. The gravity that the box causes is proportional to the mass.

Quote:

But if they really ARE slowing, then the cause and effect may be exactly what you described above, that less energy density in the outer solar system is increasing inertial mass out there. And that, if so, would slow them down with acceleration towards the Sun. Weird, but it could explain something now puzzling.

The whole "scale change" business is pretty weird, nute. Constants are constants, and you always measure the same value, but unknown to you they're changing.

Quote:

This is something being looked at as well, if I understand it, at the under construction Large Hadron Collider, as per this article: The Vacuum Strikes Back. So the mystery of ‘mass’ may actually be a function of the space vacuum, where the energy ‘shadow’ of the electron energy (what is ‘left behind’ in the atom) is what taps into the space vacuum, to become its inertial mass. However, if so, then what the Pioneers are doing far from the Sun’s radiant energy, when past the gas giants, is tapping into more of this space vacuum ‘inertial mass’. But this is true only if they actually really are slowing down, and not merely fooling us with (slowed?) signals coming back to give illusion of their slowing down. Indirectly, I think you may be showing a hypothesis why the former is true, that they are actually slowing.

I wonder if the Pluto Mission will help clear up this conundrum, as to whether or not Pioneers are really slowing, or only their signal measured? What do you think? I do not want to mis-represent what you are saying, so please correct me if I misunderstand. Thanks.

I'm not sure about Pioneer. But I am sure that there's no mystery to mass at all, and the Higgs Boson is an incorrect abstraction. The important point is that we're all made out of what are in essence ripples in this "space vacuum", and it isn't quite uniform. So energy, mass, gravity, time, everything gets a little skewed when move out of the solar system, and again when you move out of the galaxy.

Farsight · #10 (**permalink**) 06-October-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mugaliens

It was a good paper.

Thanks mugaliens. Much appreciated.

Quote:

But while he did mention Planck's constant, I really can't fathom how he managed his discussions of both time and distance without any mention of Planck time and Planck distance, both of which are fundamental to the fabric of the space-time continuum.

Point noted. I'll put them on my list, and see if I can work something in if I do some updates. I imagine there's heaps of other stuff I should or could cover. In a way I've only skimmed the surface here. You could write a thousand-page book on this stuff.

Farsight · #11 (**permalink**) 06-October-2007, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by czeslaw

Is it an accident that relation of the Gravitational and Electromagnetic interaction are equal to the square relation of the Planck length and de Broglie wave length and the fine structure constant is an only difference?

I don't know aout the Planck length, czeslaw, but I do briefly cover Planck's constant and the fine structure constant on pages 26 and 27. The former is really a constant of photon amplitude rather than of action, 3.86 x 10ˉ¹³ metres, and the latter is related to geometry, involving a 30.75687º angle.

Quote:

Why is it so difficuld to observe a Higgs boson ? Because it would be at Planck length, I think.

I'm afraid I now take the view that the Higgs boson has to be an abstraction. We use pair production to create mass out of a photon, and the photon is boson enough.

Quote:

Something sits in the space (Vacuum) and it creates a real Universe.

In writing this paper I've come to the conclusion that the something is space. Atoms aren't 99% empty space. They're 100% empty space. Everything is "made" out of space "tied into knots". Topological defects if you prefer.

czeslaw · #12 (**permalink**) 06-October-2007, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nutant gene 71

I doubt it's an accident these interrelate so well. Planck and Prince de Broglie were heading the right way, I think, but thread of thought ran into the Standard Model where gravity won't play along. I think Farsight is trying to pick it up here, good work, but he too runs up against what I pointed up above: is it signal slow-down or inertial-mass variable that accounts for Pioneer Anomaly? Perhaps Pluto Mission will help clear this up, or ESA's future mission, if it flies, to measure for inertial-mass in the outer solar system to resolve this question.

Do you have references that show the interrelationships between Gravitational and Electromagnetic interaction as square relation of Planck length and de Broglie wave length? Thanks.

GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS PLASMA OF THE VIRTUAL PARTICLES

New Gravitational hypothesis

This idea isn't of the mainstream because it needs a kind of a space structure. In String Theory graviton in an empty space mediates the gravity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton. In this idea is the space alone built of gravitons like particles. The inwards oscillations of the space's structure creates a space curvature.

The relation of the de Broglie wave length and Planck length with alfa fine structure constant shows the relation of the electromagnetic and gravitational interaction. Is it an accident or a property of the space ? Is gravity caused by de Broglie oscillation of the energetic particle ?

The first de Broglie equation relates the wavelength to the particle momentum as

where λ is the particle's wavelength , h is Planck's constant , p is the particle's momentum , m is the particle's rest mass , v is the particle's velocity , γ is the Lorentz factor , and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.The mass time Lorentz factor is the rest mass and relativistic mass together. We call it in the calculation m1 .This particle interacts with another particle m2 .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_wavelength

The Planck length equals:

meter
where:

(pronounced h-bar) is Dirac's constant, Planck's constant divided by 2π;

G is the gravitational constant ;

c is the speed of light in vacuum.

Lp2 = hG/c^3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

The relation lp/l is very important for the gravity/EM interaction.

The particles interacts and the relation is lp2 /l1 l2 = Planck length^2/(h/m1 v1)(h/m2 v2)

Gravitational interaction is F(g)=Gm1 m2/d2

Electromagnetic interaction is F(e)=kq2/d 2

The relation F(g)/F(e)=Gm1 m2/kq2

F(g)/F(e)

lp2/l1 l2)= hc3/kq2 v1 v2 = c2/av1 v2

where a (alfa) is fine structure constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

and now if there is light with v=c

F(g)/F(e)=lp2/al1 l2 = Planck length^2/alfa lambda(1)lambda(2)

if there is particle v<c and v=h/ml

F(g)/F(e)=c2lp2m1 m2/h2 a = c^2 Planck length^2 m(1)m(2)/alfa h^2=m1 m2/kq2

The gravity interacts for a very short Planck's time and every unbalance in the virtual plasma causes movement towards the unbalance like in the ordinary plasma.

The rest mass particle of the matter creates a permanent excess of the matter in a sea of the matter-antimatter. There is a permanent intermittent movement by Planck's length steps towards the source of the unbalance.

Close to the rest mass particle there is a double layer in the Vacuum and sharp tension of the electromagnetic interactions – van der Waals, weak and strong interactions.

This way we may formulate the Gravity by the Electricity. The Gravitational field lost Mass and Gravitational constant and receives charge and permittivity in Planck length.

Empty space does not exist.

http://www.blackholes.int.pl/

czeslaw · #13 (**permalink**) 06-October-2007, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farsight

I don't know aout the Planck length, czeslaw, but I do briefly cover Planck's constant and the fine structure constant on pages 26 and 27. The former is really a constant of photon amplitude rather than of action, 3.86 x 10ˉ¹³ metres, and the latter is related to geometry, involving a 30.75687º angle.

I'm afraid I now take the view that the Higgs boson has to be an abstraction. We use pair production to create mass out of a photon, and the photon is boson enough.

In writing this paper I've come to the conclusion that the something is space. Atoms aren't 99% empty space. They're 100% empty space. Everything is "made" out of space "tied into knots". Topological defects if you prefer.

Thank you Farsight for your thread.
It is similar to my idea.
Your idea about speed of light depending on gravitational field is very interesting. It may help to solve many problems if we explain it properly.
I appreciate your effort.
Czeslaw

nutant gene 71 · #14 (**permalink**) 06-October-2007, 05:33 PM

Thanks czeslaw, I think your last linked http://www.blackholes.int.pl/ tells a lot, sums it up nicely, as you did. Thanks for all those references.

For example:

Quote:

The rest mass particle of the matter creates a permanent excess of the matter in a sea of the matter-antimatter. There is a permanent intermittent movement by Planck's length steps towards the source of the unbalance.

Close to the rest mass particle there is a double layer in the Vacuum and sharp tension of the electromagnetic interactions – van der Waals, weak and strong interactions.

This way we may formulate the Gravity by the Electricity. The Gravitational field lost Mass and Gravitational constant and receives charge and permittivity in Planck length.

Empty space does not exist.

Space without photons is a balanced field of the matter-antimatter plasma.

Photon is a wave of a distortion in the virtual plasma...

This I believe should be the focus of future research into plasma/space relationships, which ultimately will unite Gravity and Electromagnetism. Somewhere in there is a key to unlock space-vacuum energy and make it usuable as a continuously accelerative and manipulated force for future engines, especially for space travel. But I am getting ahead of myself, too heady stuff here, makes my head spin.

I suspect a 100 years from now, physics and astrophysics especially will look very different from what we had come to accept today.

Imagine an engine that can tap into the space-vacuum energy with the extra dividend of not only continuous accelerative gravitational force, to generate extreme velocities, but also puts out a magnetic field to shield passengers in space from cosmic radiation, and has the added advantage of accelerating everything in the craft at a uniform rate, so no sense of inertia is felt. That would be a goal for space travel we might see, in one hundred years, if this secret could be unlocked. Our electronics of today are only one side of the equation; the other side we still cannot access now, and that's the space-vacuum energy, which I suspect is gravitic in nature.

Relativity+, and then lots more plus too. For now this is too ATM even for this ATM forum.

The next generation will have to pick it up from here. They'll make Mars a day trip, while Pluto will take a little longer. Thanks for interesting discussion Farsight.

Farsight · #15 (**permalink**) 08-October-2007, 08:40 AM

Thanks czeslaw. These aren't all my own ideas. A good percentage of what I say has been said before. Do print out the paper and sit down and read it all through. I'm sure there will be some errors in there, but much of it is very simple, and I hope, very reasonable. Once you grasp some of the concepts on offer, they start looking very "obvious", and some of those intractable mysteries just melt away.

It's a pleasure nute. This sort of stuff thrills us all. By the way, I think gravity and electromagnetism are, well, nailed now. Electromagnetism is geometrical, being "twisted space", which means gravity is subtlely different to "curved spacetime". I don't think there will ever be any way of tapping into the space-vacuum energy. It's the baseline level. You're fighting entropy to get any juice out of it. And there's no travelling faster than light either. Or time travel. In some respects, it all pans out to be fairly mundane. Sometimes I wonder if that's going to be a big problem. We all love the search for truth so much. What will we do when we find it? And another issue is this: whilst some of what I say is "against the mainstream", it's not against Einstein. It seems that if Einstein were alive now, he'd be against the mainstream too, like he was for the many years until GR gained total acceptance in the late twenties.